Question

Isobel was a professional accountant with a good credit rating, and for many years carried a credit card with a credit limit of $5,000. She never used the card, but when her daughter entered her final undergraduate year of education at a distant university, Isobel arranged for a supplementary card for her daughter to provide her with access to money for living expenses in addition to her paid tuition and residence fees. During her final year at university, Isobel’s daughter occasionally used the card, and from her own funds paid the full balance owing at the end of each month. On graduation, the daughter obtained employment with a large marketing corporation, where her work involved extensive travel. At times she used her credit card for non-business expenses while traveling. The amounts charged to the supplementary card were sometimes large, but each month the daughter paid the full balance owing. In view of the extensive use of the card, the credit card issuer gradually increased the credit limit until it reached $20,000. At the end of the daughter’s first year of employment, a corporate reorganization resulted in the elimination of her job, and she was terminated. At the same time, a dispute arose between Isobel and her daughter concerning the daughter’s association with a young man that Isobel characterized as a ‘no good’. As a result of the dispute, the two ceased to speak to each other. Isobel was unaware that her daughter had been terminated by her employer, and paid no attention to the large amounts charged to the daughter’s supplementary card over the next few months. However, at the end of the third month she was notified that both her credit card and her daughter’s credit card were cancelled, as her daughter had paid the account in the amount of $20,000 with a fraudulent cheque drawn upon a non existent bank account. When Isobel refused to pay the outstanding balance, the bank instituted legal proceedings against both Isobel and her daughter for the full $20,000. Discuss the arguments that might be raised by Isobel and the bank. Render a decision.

Answer 1

The Bank would raise the argument on Isobel’s Daughter that she has paid the account with $20000 through a fraudulent Cheque of non-existing bank account. Also, Isobel will be asked and liable for legal action because she is the original account holder whose supplementary card has been arranged for her daughter. At such situation, Isobel cannot refuse the bank to pay the outstanding balance and is legally liable to pay the limit that is $20000 to the bank. Bank would argue that any one of them should have approached the bank and have mentioned about the job termination so that the card limit should have been reduced but no action from the side of Isobel and her daughter has now raised the problem. The Fraud Cheque is crime against which bank will take action and recover the penalty from Isobel and therefore it is better for Isobel to settle the matter by paying money to the bank.